Militarization of local law enforcement

Militarization of local law enforcement - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com

 

This will likely be a very unpopular Daily Jot, but I feel very compelled to write about the militarization of local law enforcement. This began because Congress passed the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act which allowed the Defense Secretary to give local law enforcement excess military equipment at no cost. Under the George W. Bush Administration the "gifts" totaled approximately $9.5 million a year. Then under the immediate past "president's" administration, the value of military transfers to local law enforcement agencies jumped to nearly $800 million in 2014, including mine-resistant, ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, assault rifles and grenade launchers.

 

After police showed up in Ferguson, Mo in full military gear, the optics were so bad that the immediate past "president" issued an executive order prohibiting heavy equipment transfers and regulating some of the other assault-oriented ones. Now President Donald Trump issued another executive order rescinding the last one and opening the door to MRAPs once again being transferred to local law enforcement. Local police will now continue to be armed with tremendous firepower. While I wholly support our men and women in blue, I believed militarizing the police was wrong when the previous "president" did it, and it is wrong for Trump to do it. Please allow me to explain.

 

Local police are a civilian organization hired to serve and protect the people by enforcing the law. They were never intended to be militarized or extensions of the US military. The military culture by design and training must be willing and able to kill the enemy. This is a doctrine of escalation. It gets people killed. Wouldn't it be better to train our police on a "De-escalation" policy? Officers trained in de-escalation techniques try whenever appropriate and possible to calm the situation, wait for back-up, and attempt to resolve a situation without gunfire when the subject does not have a gun. The idea is to save lives-both the officer's and the subject's. It is to be used when appropriate.

 

Law enforcement organizations have mixed opinions on this. Notwithstanding, those who have trained their officers in de-escalation have seen a substantial reduction in shootings. A close friend of mine who was head of the state police in a southern state told me that despite stiff opposition, he emphasized de-escalation during his long tenure-a technique he said saved many lives. He also said that he disagreed with the militarization of police forces because it encourages a culture of force rather than of service. Seattle Seahawks' Doug Baldwin, whose father is a police officer, says that all 50 states should review their law enforcement policies to "eliminate militaristic cultures while putting a higher emphasis on de-escalation tactics and crisis management efforts."

 

To me, this doesn't need to be an "either-or" situation, it's "both-and." Police need to protect themselves AND the lives of others. Taking a life should be a last resort, not something done just because it's legal to do so. Likewise, citizens should be trained to submit to authority and not escalate a situation that could cost them their lives. Exodus 20:13 says, "Thou shalt not kill." It means do not murder. The context of the Bible would indicate that we should all do as much as possible, as justly as possible, to preserve life, including our own. Transferring military culture to police culture is antithetical to the preservation of civilian life. Despite all the reasoning, the militarization of law enforcement is a dangerous long-term idea.

 

 

PLEASE VISIT MY WIFES WEBSITE. SHE RUNS "YOUNG LIVING" WHICH PROVIDES ALL NATURAL OILS THAT CAN BE USED INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INCLUDING A DEFUSER WHICH PUTS AN AMAZING ODOR IN THE AIR. THIS PRODUCT IS SO AMAZING AND KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET YEARS OF ENJOYMENT FROM IT. GOTO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGLIVING.ORG/CDROSES